He was pushed on me by teachers because he made bad analysis videos of famous writers and the teachers thought that he would appeal to a teenage boy because "his characters are teens"
That's their idea of what teenagers like. Not even the teenage girls I know read him. The smarter tomboyish ones read fantasy novels aimed at men and and the dumber ones read Twilight and HP
>in front of them
No, this can't be the confusion, it's pretty obvious by the apple inside the person's head that the visualization is inside your mind, not augmented reality in front of you. It's pretty obvious. The apples are inside the heads in the picture.
8 months ago
Anonymous
the way people talk about it, due to the meme, can be misleading. i don't really understand the complete inability to visualize on command, but because it has captured the public there are a lot of exaggerations.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>but because it has captured the public there are a lot of exaggerations.
i.e. >there must some rational explanation for why there are so many people who can't visualize an apple
Yes. There is. The majority of people on this planet are NPCs who have literally no free will, no imagination, and no internal monologue. There is no point in sugar coating it. There is no point seeking for answers beyond this. Most people are not sentient beings, but automata.
8 months ago
Anonymous
there are lots of less intelligent people
but i reject the idea that there are any humans that don't have the divine spark within them
8 months ago
Anonymous
I guess we should see it this way.
Some have a spark like when you try to light up a lighter,others a small flame and theres the people who have a full bonfire.
>in front of them
No, this can't be the confusion, it's pretty obvious by the apple inside the person's head that the visualization is inside your mind, not augmented reality in front of you. It's pretty obvious. The apples are inside the heads in the picture.
Actually I can manifest an image of an apple in front of me, in my hand, etc. It's not as clear as in my head and requires more focus. I can also induce the weight, texture, smell, taste, phantom touch, etc. Like I'm a schizophrenic but aware.
8 months ago
Anonymous
is that how you regular recall things?
8 months ago
Anonymous
No it's usually in my head and not projected into my field of vision because doing that requires concentration. Visualizing in my head doesn't require any work.
8 months ago
Anonymous
NTA but I do that too. When I was a child I used to entertain myself during long car rides by imagining ninjas, jaguars or monsters running alongside me, jumping from roof to roof and avoiding obstacles to keep up. Nowadays I don't superimpose my imagination onto my vision much, and it's a bit more tiring than I remember. The process is pretty similar to regular imagination, but with focus split evenly on the internal and external, if that makes sense.
8 months ago
Anonymous
No you can't. It's still in your mind's eye. You are imagining the same thing you are seeing with your real eyes in that moment, so the two "screens" are identical and you think they're the same.
8 months ago
Anonymous
What is the mind's eye? All I know is I close my eyes I imagine an apple, I see it projected on the back of my eyelid, I open my eyes the apple remains. I can imagine the apple in my hands and I can recall what such an apple would feel like if I had it in my hands
8 months ago
Anonymous
Mind's eye is your imagination, stuff you see inside your head without eyes. In your case (assuming you don't have hallucinations) you are imagining the same scenario that you are actually seeing in reality but with an apple added, so you can't really tell which one is real because they're identical (minus the apple).
You can't create a mental image so strong that you become blind to the visual stimuli around you?
8 months ago
Anonymous
daydreaming? yeah, but it remains within my mind. it is more that i have retreated into my mind than manifested the image into the world.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>day dreaming
No. It's more like trying to remember if you turned the kettle on so you replay the event in your head and watch what happened. It's not the same as getting lost in thought, it's visual thinking.
8 months ago
Anonymous
yeah I do that
8 months ago
Anonymous
A lot of people don't and even fewer do it in high res (i.e. to the point the thought blocks out other stimuli). That's what the scale is meant to represent.
Are you moronic? Clearly it's demonstrating a poor mental visual of an apple, not an "unintentional outline" of one.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I'm just so good at visualizing that I take everything literally, but that's something a visualet like you could never understand. Keep narrating your thoughts that you can't see, monologuecuck.
8 months ago
Anonymous
visualize my dick against your anus
primed for entry
your hole quivering with delight and trepidation
8 months ago
Anonymous
Nice cope.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>can't comprehend what I wrote >vaguely understands he's wrong >calls me a moron
Lesser minds projecting at me is always funny
8 months ago
Anonymous
I misread what you wrote, sorry about that. No need to be smug about it though, that's unnecessary.
Perhaps. Albeit, some people really do claim that they cant project a 3D object into space they observe.
It would be interestinf to se reaearch done how it comes to this. I have a hunch it has to do with way we memoryse things from early childhood.
When you think off it, memorysing things by words only and packing them up seems more resourcefull then remembering the whole fricking picture of a certain detail or object in general.
What i know is, one of my friends when asked "How does John look like" says she just remembers all words that she ascribes to him. On other hand i allways present my self picture of a John and describe him.
I agree, this is always a recurrent theme in these threads. I tend to feel that many of the people in these threads who claim to be highly imaginative "seers" and accuse others of being NPCs may actually be much less creative and imaginative than they think, like a Dunning-Kruger effect of the imagination -- they share the same kind of complete literalism, one-sided intolerance and refusal of metaphor that characterises the opposite side of the completely autistic or unimaginative: they don't seem to understand that "seeing" is a metaphor for what actually occurs in the process of imagination, nor do they seem to ever concede any faults or have a realistic appraisal of their own imagination -- they claim to be able to see anything, anytime, in complete detail, etc.. On the other hand, you do apparently have people like this
[...]
Actually I can manifest an image of an apple in front of me, in my hand, etc. It's not as clear as in my head and requires more focus. I can also induce the weight, texture, smell, taste, phantom touch, etc. Like I'm a schizophrenic but aware.
who do literally "see" objects through the production of their imagination, visionary/Blake types. There I would have to concede that I am utterly incapable as I believe most people are.
I also think that the imagination is not a process that can be "willed" and those who claim to wield at as a power over others are also betraying a kind of literalism and selfishness in their understanding of the imagination. Imagination is surely not a power we can wield but a gift we are given. I believe the imagination is a passive experience: if I attempt to "will" an image of an apple before me, for example, it's usually faint and seems to disappear the more I focus upon it. But experiencing it within the context of a story, or a daydream, when I am not really concentrating upon it, then it appears more vividly. This is partly why I believe most of us experience dreams just as vividly or near-vividly as real life in a way that the waking imagination cannot supply, in that they occur in an unconscious state.
>On the other hand, you do apparently have people like this
[...]
Actually I can manifest an image of an apple in front of me, in my hand, etc. It's not as clear as in my head and requires more focus. I can also induce the weight, texture, smell, taste, phantom touch, etc. Like I'm a schizophrenic but aware. who do literally "see" objects through the production of their imagination, visionary/Blake types.
You can't "see" yourself holding an apple, biting in to it, feeling the texture and the juices and the sweetness in your mouth? It helps if you play it out with your hand.
Of course I can, but it is not the same as experiencing the sensation. There is clearly a difference that that above anon claims to be able to breach -- manifesting an actual object or hallucinating it before you. All I am claiming is that I have the power of imagination without being able to hallucinate at will, which is the experience for most people.
There absolutely is a gap in interpretation when people speak of "seeing" with their mind's eye. They are however not wrong about there being a visual experience to imagination. It's, however, never quite as vivid as actual sight. One might speak of 'phantom visuals' or 'quasi-sight'; an often dulled or restricted form of visual experience that is in many ways comparable to dreaming.
Another factor that isn't being accounted for is time and effort invested in said imagination. It should be obvious to anyone that the more effort one invests, the more detailed the visualization can become, e.g. imagining the intricate and complex world of Middle Earth can not be done in an instant.
So the question ought to be whether one is capable of performing "quasi-sight" to a certain level of detail (colors, textures, translation, rotation, mutation, ...) within a given time frame.
With all of this in mind, I'd guess that the average person ought to lie somewhere in the middle: visually experiencing memories, imagination and dreams with a decent level of detail. And of course, there would be outliers on both extremes; some would be essentially barred from any visual experience, which is essentially aphantasia, and some who would excel at creating extremely vivid quasi-perceptions at a superb speed.
Of course its a misunderstanding. People cannot differentiate between "seeing" and "imagining". I believe that most people who claim to be 4 or 5 have decent visual imagination but they think that the twitter post is asking them to literally hallucinate objects.
I have very good visual imagination. And can easily imagine an apple in 3D, move it around in my head, place it in a completely imaginary kitchen and wach as my imaginary hot gf with blonde locks cuts it in half. But if I were to say that I literally "see" the apple as a visual image, I would be lying. I'm just conjuring up an image straight from memory.
But then there are people like John Greene who apparently don't have imaginative abilities. So I guess 4s and 5s do exist but in smaller numbers than reported.
On the other hand people who can literally hallucinate an object as if it was infront of their eyes like a real object phenomenal experience probably suffer from schizophrenia or some other assortment of mental disorders
I agree with this, because every time I see that scale posted I try it on command and have different results. All biased towards
being able to visualize it, but with varying success. But then at night when I'm going to bed I daydream about girls I fricked or wanted to frick blowing me.
Maybe a better question to survey would be: do you daydream, if so is it in color?
Also quite sure my first wife had BPD and she was obsessed with this homosexual, her favorite book was looking for Alaska and she made me read it. I'll never forget the scene where he's showering or some shit and describing how scrawny and weak he is
>On the other hand people who can literally hallucinate an object as if it was infront of their eyes like a real object phenomenal experience probably suffer from schizophrenia or some other assortment of mental disorders
You can't imagine with your eyes open and then superimpose the object into your sight? It's obviously not as "solid" as a real object would be, it's not a real hallucination
It's always easier to imagine stuff while offing what's actually around. Like, it's easier to imagine touching something wet and cold with imaginary hand rather than the real one because actual senses mess up with the feeling in your mind.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I agree that you can't actually feel senses like wet and cold you can only imagine it or recall what it feels like from the last time you felt it
The test asks of you to VISUALISE an apple IN YOUR HEAD. I can easily do that to the same degree of detail as in the pic numbered 1. But that's nothing special since I'm only conjuring up an image based on my visual memory of thousands of apple I've already seen.
But anyway, now that I try it, Its much harder and much less clear to superimpose an apple on actual things that I see. Probably because of all the actual visual input being recieved. If I can abstract out an image of the scenery in my mind I can probably place an apple in it. But when I actually try to focus and "see" that particular spot in real world the apple easily disappears and is replaced by the actual object.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah you can't focus too much on the apple with your eyes open or else it changes or flickers
It's a little weird that some people can't see anything even in their head though, do these people dream?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>or else it changes or flickers
If you're a visuallet maybe.
8 months ago
Anonymous
My theory is that imagination and memory are conducted in different part of the brain than image formation based on optical input. They are fundamentally different things and no one actually "sees" the apple.
8 months ago
Anonymous
It honestly helps going cross-eyed. Probably the more murky the visual input, the better.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Going cross eyed is only good for precognition. When it works you’ll experience imagery on par with what you normally see—not to mention sounds and smells. It feels like you go into a trance and experience an intense day dream. From my fathers maternal line everyone can do this. Interpreting dreams are for gays who can’t peer ahead. Reading Jung isn’t going to help you do this. Frick the apple, frick the inner monologue. If your ability to perceive the future is limited to mere gut feeling you’re no better than the gays who can’t simply visualize an apple or hear their own voice.
>On the other hand people who can literally hallucinate an object as if it was infront of their eyes like a real object phenomenal experience probably suffer from schizophrenia or some other assortment of mental disorders
i always wonder how clearly they see those things. ie if they "see" a guy can they focus in on the details of his face, see his iris, count the eyebrows? or is it more like something you visualize, and the brunt of the experience just comes from their minds telling them it's actually, really, real and the "seeing" part is more something blurry, affective, based in immediate and holistically convincing experience rather than an actual 'high res' sensory experience
I'm an actual schizophrenic. It's pattern hallucinations and the ones claiming otherwise can't cope as well as me. My brain will see patterns coagulate into something that's not there but it's not literally conjuring up an image, it's just misinterpreting reality and my brain mishandling the information.
Or my delusions are real and I will kill all of you.
I think there should also be a distinction between mental visualization from pure imagination and mental visualization from memory.
When I first heard of these things, I couldn't picture things that I looked at a few seconds ago. I legtitmately had a very discolored and murky "image" mentally.
This all changed after ages of being a coomer and using the same materials over and over. Now, I can recall images and things I've seen in my minds eye pretty well. When I'm trying to make a piece with a specific character, I can picture those materials I've used well enough to use as a baseline.
But I can't really deviate from them. Shit like trying to picture a scene from just text with no visual reference doesn't work for me at all. I see the words, I understand what thry might be like in a clip art sense but I can't form a scene from words alone. So would I be a 4 or 5 since I can have a mental picture of say, "an apple", or would I be a 1 or a 0 because I can't picture what a character would look like based on the written description?
As for the hallucinations, it's more to do with ignoring what you see than overlaying your mental image over what you see. I used to use a similar trick back in math competitions when I was a kid where I'd blank out or unfocus what I see so that I could focus on a floating mental sheet of paper that I could write equations on. What I see hasn't really changed and if I focus on what I'm really looking at, it will overtake my mental image.
i somewhat agree with this. at the bare minimum he'd be able to draw an apple that would be recognisable as such (round and red with a stem and perhaps the classic leaf). that being said he does make it sound like he's entirely incapable of it which is odd
i find the image I get from visualizing something in my mind's eye is less a fixed picture like a photo and more something that is half there and half not, oscillates as i try to pull it from memory and changes especially when i try to 'look around' or make out details. a little like these gifs of stable diffusion generation steps where things move and morph about. i think it's like that for most people, even people who can draw well from imagination alone will make significant errors in proportion, perspective etc. the only way to circumvent that really is a toolkit of rules and mnemonics and endless studies to drill the way people, shapes and bodies are supposed to look like into your memory, but at that point it's not really intuitive visualization anymore.
I see your point.
when I try to imagine my dog it's like I'm seeing snnapshots or brief snippets of it in various states of motion, running or sleeping.
But I don't understand if these are just my memories and whether for this apple test I'm supposed to construct the representation of an apple from scratch or just remember the apple I ate for lunch?
I can’t always visualise something like that by itself. In the worst case, I add in things I associate with apples. like someone biting into one, or an apple tree, or a grocery store with a basket full of apples.
Oh I thought that people were really "seeing" something. But that doesn't make sense since people dont draw the things they image correctly at all, nowhere near as if they have the object in front of them
I understand when you guys do it but the man in picrelated is literally a British prig. I'm a bong and I would cringe so hard if I heard someone say that here irl.
Have these people literally never experienced a dream? A nightmare? That's literally a core human experience, is it not? If you can experience a dream then surely you can visualize shapes, images, colours etc in your mind. Right?
No. I have dreams with visual elements. Right as I'm falling asleep I get some flashes of images. But I can't voluntarily visualize anything while awake.
Apparently dreaming and visualizing are two separate things.
If you can have visual dreams but have trouble deliberately visualizing something, it's probably something to do with your attention spam and you might have ADHD.
If you want to experience the most vivid form of imagination, you should try entering the hypnagogic state, a brief period between wakefulness and sleep. You can train your brain to linger in that state by constantly waking yourself up through Inception-style kick, like holding a spoon in your hands that drops if you fall asleep. Einstein and Salvador Dali swore by this method as their prime source of inspiration.
Yes, I've experienced it a few times.
Things feel extraordinarily clear, you see objects in the room with total clarity. I made myself see a sculpture, a picture of the sea etc. When I tried to see a nude women it stopped. Oh, well! Happened a few times, don't know if I can induce it.
>dreams for inspiration
literally the lowest tier of inspiration. the people i've talked to that do this were pathetically uncreative. on the same level as those who do drugs to try and be creative.
sorry to hear you've never experienced real creativity, and thus have to resort to taking inspiration from a semi coherent mishmashed jumble of random thoughts and feels
its easy to prove that dreams are shit, because many artists have the cliche idea of "trying to create a piece that feels like a dream". and they are always shit
real creativity happens in the waking world
8 months ago
Anonymous
Sorry to hear that. Trying reading Kafka!
8 months ago
Anonymous
You do realize people who take inspiration from dreams can also use their imagination awake right ?
If as you claim true imagination only happens awake and the dreamers are less imaginative you would have to defend the argument that dreaming substract from awakened imagination instead of adding to it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
is this image a yugioh referece to godspeed you black emperor
I notice this when I'm driving while incredibly tired. The kicks happen constantly from suddenly realizing I need to be awake to not die, but I can semi-consciously watch things in my field of view vividly transform into completely different objects like an out-of-control dream world. It probably would be really neat to do in a controlled, safe environment.
There was a time on tumblr where you could edit someone else's posts for some fricking reason. This led to people constantly altering John Greene's posts into something sexual, mostly related to him being a wienersucker.
He tried to limit the damage done to his account, fishingboatproceeds, but it was too late and he left the site.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Thinking about it, the damage control he tried there is super odd. He tries to pretend as if that editor did it to make gay blowjobs seem shameful lol, instead of just making him look foolish.
What a loathsome guy.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>people with penises >people with penises >learn how to insult someone
Kek
8 months ago
Anonymous
Thinking about it, the damage control he tried there is super odd. He tries to pretend as if that editor did it to make gay blowjobs seem shameful lol, instead of just making him look foolish.
What a loathsome guy.
Yeah, my first thought is that this damage control is way more pathetic than that actual post would be were he to have actually posted it himself earnestly, which would make him a based homosexual had he done it. It's so snivelly in the disgusting way that he is.
Lol, I can imagine it having happened but John not reporting it to the police because he liked it so much and because being a "person engaging in same sex relations" is already oh so hard so why make the rapist's life harder 🙁
As a cuckold myself I actually found myself siding with Green there in the last few lines. Socrates' final argument is predicated on the notion that sleeping with other men would be a betrayal of trust to begin with. That is the flaw in your argument so I am gonna have to give this one to Green.
Phantasia Pleb >can only understand an object as an physical object >rooted in material world, slave of the demiurge >"sees" things, aka their phenomenal appearances >his mind is just a glorified mirror >cannot understand books, thinks reading means playing a movie in his head
Abstract Thinker Chadson >cognizes past superficialities >on direct line to the world of Forms, was born outside the Cave >thinks about thoughts about thoughts about thoughts...all the way to the Prime Mover >has never sees an image in his life, even with eyes open, only sees the effervescent anima mundi >knows that numbers are real, has a few in his pocket
Because I know from memory what a certain thing looks like? I dont need to see an apple infront of me to know in my mind how an apple looks.
8 months ago
Anonymous
It is pitch black in my mind but I still "see" the thought. But not with any visuals and certainly no color.
>It is pitch black in my mind but I still "see" the thought.
That makes you a 1. You would definitely be able to freely imagine arbitrary colored objects as if they were in front of your face, as opposed to just "remembering what they are like", were you capable of it.
Question IQfy
So I can “visualize” an orange in all 3 demensions in my mind; but I feel distinctally it is some orange I have seen before
Just like removed from context outside
Does this make me a 1 a 5 or somewhere in between?
>So I can “visualize” an orange in all 3 demensions in my mind; but I feel distinctally it is some orange I have seen before
That's a symptom of autism. Not even joking.
The big romantic climax in one of his books/movies is set in the AF house. His couple make out whilst speakers play excerpts from AF's diary, and then all the museum goers start applauding them.
Nobody is making the deeper connections here. This teaches us that the israelites lack the imaginative capacity of the Aryans and therefore act entirely on instinct, hence their failure to recognise their collapsing influence and eventual expulsion.
Very people few are, whatever their origin. I realized /misc/'s arguments were BS after meeting many Europeans. I was not only more knowledgeable than them (in matters of art, literature, history) but also more creative and imaginative. The average Euro is a pleb, nothing to write home about. I've nothing against them but everything against /misc/'s lies.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I've nothing against them but everything against /misc/'s lies.
Modern European culture is Weimar Germany to the tenth power. Whites at least have the highest capacity for advanced intellect and creativity. Most nonwhites are literally just animals living in the present, supremely ignorant of all imagination or foresight.
Even if you're as smart as you think you are, your offspring will likely just fall back into the cesspool of general bastardisation and mediocrity.
8 months ago
Anonymous
if he has a high IQ partner they will likely have high IQ offspring. regression to the mean applies to the larger populations.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>if he has a high IQ partner they will likely have high IQ offspring.
But they will just be another mud that we have to remove from our genepool
8 months ago
Anonymous
where you do you live?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>where you do you live?
Here
8 months ago
Anonymous
>88
chegged
but also, that explains the low IQ reductionism
8 months ago
Anonymous
>that explains the low IQ reductionism
What am I reducing anon?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Race to worth
Ignoring exemplary specimens
8 months ago
Anonymous
He's a midwit though and so is his trannie looking wife.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>her ~~*nose*~~
8 months ago
Anonymous
oy vey, that nose is like annuda shoah
8 months ago
Anonymous
I would feminize her with little regard for her safety.
8 months ago
Anonymous
you kind of sidestepped my question.
it was meant to ascertain whether your kin are high IQ.
do you not acknowledge mean IQ differences for different races?
I'm not a mulatto but I'm not joking. I can imagine entire movies if I want.
you kind of sidestepped my question.
it was meant to ascertain whether your kin are high IQ.
do you not acknowledge mean IQ differences for different races?
My dad is high IQ but leans more towards math/science.
>I've nothing against them but everything against /misc/'s lies.
Modern European culture is Weimar Germany to the tenth power. Whites at least have the highest capacity for advanced intellect and creativity. Most nonwhites are literally just animals living in the present, supremely ignorant of all imagination or foresight.
Even if you're as smart as you think you are, your offspring will likely just fall back into the cesspool of general bastardisation and mediocrity.
Finding an intelligent woman to reproduce is hard, unfortunately.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Finding an intelligent woman to reproduce is hard
Eh. I value the right spirit and love for truth more than intellect.
>Is he not?
He's a very well hidden israelite. Most israelites lie on national censuses. Does anyone honestly believe there are only like 20 million of them? It's 50 million at the very least..
8 months ago
Anonymous
>very well hidden
Not to anyone who knows Green is a israelite name.
Wtf does he mean that “it’s just text.” Surely if I mentioned that a character had blonde hair and wore a suit and asked him to draw that character, he wouldn’t just draw an empty suit suspended below a floating toupee. So clearly his mind must make approximations and visual schemas.
How do you guys compromise between having a steady, natural flow of visualization while having a decent reading speed?
I read slow, unfathomably slow like 15 pages an hour, not even on hard prose, just your standard Dosto or Henry James, but in my defense I try to visualize literally everything and spend too much time thinking about different camera angles and characters' outfits and facial expressions. Do you guys do this unconsciously? I want to be able to read like 60-80 pages an hour as some of you claim
when i read, not only do i imagine visuals, i also imagine sound effects and a score.
sometimes i get so immersed i start quietly voice-acting the lines and emoting as the characters with my face.
I still think this whole scale exists because of some misunderstanding about what it means to be able to visualize an apple in your mind's eye.
that's what i've always thought. it's arguing about the semantics. Yes I can imagine things, rotate them, modify them, combine multiple things into one, that's how I'm able to come up with things from imagination that i would then draw. But I don't literally LITERALLY see them, with my eyeballs. it's a mind's eye, it's a different thing.
Also, I've never heard of anyone imagining things in greyscale, or as an outline. If the thing I'm imagining is very complex, I may lose track of fine details, and it will be a morphing, ever-changing, just like what
i somewhat agree with this. at the bare minimum he'd be able to draw an apple that would be recognisable as such (round and red with a stem and perhaps the classic leaf). that being said he does make it sound like he's entirely incapable of it which is odd
i find the image I get from visualizing something in my mind's eye is less a fixed picture like a photo and more something that is half there and half not, oscillates as i try to pull it from memory and changes especially when i try to 'look around' or make out details. a little like these gifs of stable diffusion generation steps where things move and morph about. i think it's like that for most people, even people who can draw well from imagination alone will make significant errors in proportion, perspective etc. the only way to circumvent that really is a toolkit of rules and mnemonics and endless studies to drill the way people, shapes and bodies are supposed to look like into your memory, but at that point it's not really intuitive visualization anymore.
says (and the stable diffusion gif anon provided is also very apt). So I think that part is just some made up bs by the author of the original scale image.
However, this John Green guy makes me doubt this theory right now... is he literally just thinking about text? is he the autism?
I can because nothing I could find could ever fulfil the fantasy of being magically transformed into a girl and having sex with men
Been doing it since I was a kid
I wonder if this is why I visualise when I read now
im 20 and i can. I'd be surprised to learn most people my age can't jerk off with their imagination, but most of them probably don't do it in practice though
>If you can jerk off with just your imagination you're good.
I've fricked every hot girl and twink I've ever met with the power of advanced eidetic imagination 😉
when i went on ADHD meds i literally lost the ability to vividly visualize in my head. i think people really do have different levels of being able to do this
I had an ex gf who had an insane visual imagination. Easily a 1 in the scale. But she had trouble with narrating her thoughts. I wonder if one thing takes from the other, but considering that John Green sucks at both, then it's likely just random.
I've been studying Pound, Williams, and Olsen. People ask me about it and reverence leaves me unable to speak. And now I'm here reading about a famous writer of our age and he wouldn't even be able to engage in the process of absorbing that material let alone reach any level of understanding. John Green is a savage.
I don't believe people who claim not to see things in their mind's eye. Imagination is basically an extension of memory, and if they're claiming they don't possess imagination, they shouldn't possess memory either. If someone asks them to describe a place they've visited or the face of someone they know, how are they doing it? It's utter nonsense. Attention seeking LARPers.
Film school sucks. It's literally John Green types who were tryhards in highschool and had the grades to get in, but most of these people have no visual imagination. They have access to the most expensive equipment and use it in the most uninspiring way possible. It's weird, a lot of people light/shoot more like a logic system of what's supposed to work or what has worked than doing interesting things. It makes sense if all they see is a rigid language. to be honest filmmaking isn't that creative of an art, most stuff is shot this way in the industry.
Whenever someone post that image in twitter you will see a lot of people claiming they are a 1, but that is statistically impossible. The test to know if you're truly a 1 is to imagine a tiger or a zebra so vividly that you can, without any trouble, just as if you were looking at a photograph, count its black strips. If you can't, then you're barely better than a legit moron like John Green.
>imagine a tiger or a zebra so vividly that you can, without any trouble, just as if you were looking at a photograph, count its black strips
I'm a 1, but that's impossible. Not even I can do that and I seriously doubt anyone can.
How could anyone even do that? I'm definitely a 1, but I can't keep an image completely still in my mind. It's kind of like looking at a reflection in the water while someone throws small rocks at it, so even if I tried to count the strips, they will keep moving and changing in number.
Lmao no.
Counting the lines on a zebra or tiger accurately is not even that easy with a picture.
Also im a 1 and can imagine a zebra like it was like 10 meters away but if i try to count the line or focus on details of a bigger picture i imagine the image will shift to those details from closer.
Except youre wrong.
Im a 1 and Ive always been proud of myself for not being an NPC who cant visualize.
Counting the lines of a zebra or tiger in your mind is impossible.
>Counting the lines on a zebra or tiger accurately is not even that easy with a picture.
It is if you've finished third grade.
You don't need numbers higher than a few dozen.
When I try to count the stripes they always flicker out of existence.
Nobody has mentioned this in the thread yet but I get really vivid night terrors sometimes does anyone else get those? Would someone with aphantasia not get those?
Anon, you just also have a very good working memory. Being a 1 means your spatial intelligence is high, but many of those people won't perform as well in different tasks.
Even better: if you're a 1, can you imagine a face or even just a realistic apple over a piece of paper and draw over it? That would make you a human printer.
My brother can do that and he was obsessed with drawing as a kid and he was amazing at it. He lost his interest in it many, many years ago though, but even now if you ask him to draw something he's still really good at it.
This is the dumbest, most pointless post I’ve seen on this board. Simply LOOK at the damned original image: If you can see an apple in your mine, and it looks as it does in reality, you’re a 1—that’s what the original image is about. My best guess as to why this tard chose a tiger and a zebra is that he’s relatively familiar with them. When I try to count the stripes on an imaginary zebra or tiger, it all gets corrupted because I’m not entirely sure of the scale of the animal (“is its body too long?” etc) or its stripes (how wide or thin they should be. If most 1’s tried to do something similar with an animal they’re more familiar with it would be easier, because you wouldn’t be quantifying something which your brain has naturally made ambiguous.
>typos mean you’re dumb because… uh…
E is just above D on the keyboard, tard.
>with an animal they’re more familiar with it would be easier
Then do that, you fricking moron. A tiger or a zebra are usually used because most people know what they look like, but you can obviously do the same thing with another animal. Or if you're too dumb even for that, then try to visualize a small sheet of graph paper and count how many squares are in there without them flickering or disappearing as you count them.
Most people know what tigers and zebras look like, but do not see them in person, and thus do not truly understand the scale of the animal or its stripes. When I imagine it, I can see the stripes, but they are completely unquantifiable, ambiguous, because I am not actually familiar with zebras or tigers. If you imagine a bug and try to count its legs, it’s way easier, for example. This is literally just larping as a genius for you.
>with an animal they’re more familiar with it would be easier
Then do that, you fricking moron. A tiger or a zebra are usually used because most people know what they look like, but you can obviously do the same thing with another animal. Or if you're too dumb even for that, then try to visualize a small sheet of graph paper and count how many squares are in there without them flickering or disappearing as you count them.
This is bullshit. I'm as much of a 1 as it gets and not even I can do this shit. The strips starts disappearing and changing as I try to count them. Good trolling, anon.
Not only I can count them, I can feel the body of the zebra, its heat from the skin, its smell.
I can feel myself riding the zebra in the savannah with some random classical music in the background.
This and more is possible to the human mind, you accept limitation and thus find this impossible. Training of the mind is no different than that of the body.
Because of my activity I'm a phenomanally good visual person. Despite this, actually, you couldn't pick a worse board for this kind of posting.
It's probable that people with germanic languages and the such, coupled with a really low cultural environment makes it so that you won't understant where I'm coming from. But reading and using your imagination is really counteresthetic. 95% of the "sacred" "transcendental" "esthetic" value of literature is in its style, flowing, evocative and poetic structure. Imagination is always bland, and in the most authoritative media, where the writer among all artists is the one whose vision is hardest to evade, this 5% of agency that imagination gives ruins a lot of the deep human contact in literature. Well anyways just check Hegel's list on what goes from the most terrestrial to the most ethereal form of art.
nowadays you have cinema and such, it's also the same, where styles matters more than scenario or structure or anything.
It's all about the sacred, transcendental. And You can't see those with your eyes. Even painters came to this conclusion.
Look at Rothko: still probably the most sacred painter
I have some very vivid nightmares when I'm sleeping like some of the most horrifying shit, but when I'm awake I can only imagine things in a very blurry way and it kinda dissipates very shortly after it's imagined up.
Alright morons step aside, I will explain what this means so hopefully some of you would understand and this meme would die over time.
Firstly, I see some people mixing it up with inner monologue, that is another topic but probably related at least in concept if not in physiology as well.
Since we are talking about subjective experience, it is natural that there is some confusion on this subject. But the greater culprit is this meme image itself. I doubt that that scale was created based on interviewing multiple people but rather than was based on the assumptions and misunderstandings of one man.
There is no 1 to 5 scale as it is pictured in that image.
Some people cannot see things in their mind's eye. Eyes closed or open. They cannot imagine hot girls to jerk off or have the sheep jump on the fence as they count to them to fall asleep.
That does not necessarily make them dull, as having no inner monologue does not make people NPCs. There are different ways to conceptualize, visualize, and understand the world around us and within us. There are many creative people who cannot see in their mind's eye. Some people see the word itself when they hear or read a word, rather than the thing it signifies which makes them have more control over different aspects of writing, as with someone who has greater understanding of the sound of a word.
Let's also differentiate between seeing things as part of the real world and in one'es mind eye. The former is simply hallucination and is not relevant to the topic at hand as far as I am concerned.
When one sees things in their mind's eye, whether their eyes open or closed, they know the thing they see is conjured, whether intentionally or not.
You can also see things in your mind's eye awake without your will, perhaps disturbing images or such, that comes from your subconsciousness. In that regard, I think it is similar to dreams.
There are degrees of this vision. Similar to having degrees of other conjured senses. I mean, one can also conjure a smell, touch, taste, or sound in their mind, as well as thoughts. Not everyone is capable of all of them, and not to the same degree.
For vision, some people may see things in motion, in 3D, rotate them easily, have the specific details while others may see only 2D images, or blurry vague and floating impressions.
Perhaps this can be trained like a muscle with visualisation exercises. Perhaps other things are necessary.
It can be that people who cannot conjure up images, cannot do so because of a traumatic event of some sort that happened in very early age, and that their brain is trying to protect them from seeing some distrubing images by not showing them any images at all. Or perhaps they are just more capable in other areas of the brain.
I myself can see floating vague impressions, but they do not come to me naturally, I have to focus. And if I have seen a photo of a person's face, the memory of the photo overwhelms the memory of that person's face.
my mind's eye was very vivid until one day me and my cousin played a game in which we saw who could slam their head into the wall the hardest. I got a running start, put my head down, and jumped into the wall. I no longer visualize things.
I'm so much a 1 on that scale I can't even imagine being a 5 as a real thing. Like you don't see anything at all? When you read you just acknowledge characters and emotions? How can prose even effect you. You just understand it to be good but have nothing beyond that. I refuse to believe it's even possible
I don't know how to describe it. I don't SEE anything, but I can parse textual descriptors into an imagined simulacrum that exists entirely as...I don't know. A feeling? A half-remembered dream? I'm definitely capable of being moved by prose.
You're absorbing the meaning as purely abstract concepts, so abstract that they don't have even a visual form. This does not really mean you are an "NPC" or whatever the meme word is, as you're still capable of abstract reasoning even if it doesn't take a verbal/visual form.
Non-visualizers are simply animals, but they are not as despisable as those wienerroaches without inner monologues. Those are really an insult to the human condition.
Unironically, why do people always get so offended when they are told they are a 2 instead of a 1? Being a 2 is good enough. It's extremely rare to be a 1.
i'm not a professional artist but i can draw and paint at a level where casual bystanders will basedface if they catch a chance glance of my scribbles, and i disagree. the way you become kim jung gi is by learning how to draw from nature (and later imagination) the classical way and practicing till your joints ache.
good visual art usually boils down to craft and originality, one of them is just a grind, the other is more of a gift you have or you dont. i think the only way your aptitude for visualization would affect you in that regard is if you're genuinely "visually moronic", but i don't think it'd give you much of an edge. yes there's that guy who can draw a cityscape from memory after seeing it for 20 seconds and that is impressive indeed, but it doesnt really make his art interesting or beautiful per se
I get it, I like to draw to and I don't think visualization skills are always an edge, but they may get better if you practice drawing from the imagination a lot
They also are encouraging if you can imagine what the art will look like before it is completed
listen up, homo.
you're the one who is misunderstanding the exercise.
it isn't about superimposing a mental image onto the world, or hallucinating a fricking animal you've never seen irl.
you're not some human pinnacle because you daydream a lot and imagine counting stripes on an animal that you dreamed up, and simply saying that you're doing so is unverifiable.
i can say that i'm projecting a dragon onto my wife's left breast right now and he's winking and making lewd gestures, does that make me a 1?
If you want to elevate yourself from this tired discussion, read Schwitzgebel, The Unreliability of Naive Introspection. You'll look at threads like this one and see all these wienersure ignoramuses for what they are: clueless.
Yeah that’s usually the vibe I get from these types who talk about this and use the term wordcel unironically. It’s like some gay split from Chan culture.
It's not that strange. Your brain remembers feel, temperature, and scent so it's not far fetched to recall those sensations. You probably just haven't focused on it much.
I can remember tastes very accurately too. I always thought that was the weirdest one. If I think about how a strawberry tastes I can all but actually taste it.
How would you cook properly if you couldn't recall and feel the tastes, aromas and textures of food, blend them together in your mind, see what would go well together and what wouldn't? Just guessing and trial and error? Is having a powerful imagination the real reason why I'm a fatass?
i can see, feel, hear and taste in my head but finding a smell is pretty hard. i guess i can get a grasp on certain fragrances and spices but aside from that i usually end up just thinking about a visual linked to that scent.
It's baffling to me that some of y'all smell stuff in your mind. You SMELL it? The way your nose smells? I always thought "olfactorialize" meant thinking of the words/ideas/feelings associated with a thing, not actual smells. I am such a total 5 on this scale I didn't know 1-4 existed.
The way I see it, there are two things that need to be clarified. First of all, when we say "imagination" that's something different from "visualization" they don't mean the same thing in this context. Second, we all have different ways of "imagining" things. A lot of us use visualization to imagine things, while others might use taste, smell, or abstractions/concepts or whatever you call it. On one end, (sees a clear apple, 1) they use visualization to imagine it. While on the other end (doesn't see anything, 5) might use other ways to imagine it, like touch, taste and/or smell. The people that can't exactly visualize an apple can still imagine it, it's just that they don't actually "see" it in the same way as someone who can visualize it does. If we take the people that uses abstractions/concepts, they can still imagine an apple because they know what it is already (somewhat simplified), although most of these people use some sort of combination of taste, touch, smell and knowing what it looks like. So, the way this "illustration" in OP' pic is potrayed it makes it seem like some people don't have an imagination at all which I don't think is true. Now, this thing usually gets paired with inner voice/monologue dilemma but that's another thing.
In short, we all can imagine but in different ways.
Isn't the best way to measure this by drawing an apple or a face from memory? I think people with aphantasia only make up 4 to 2% od the population, it's exceedingly rare, same with hyperphantasia.
The written test is a sham, if you can visualize, you can draw perfectly from memory.
But if you can visualize it perfectly, it like having a specimen right there. So even if the lines are wonky, all the crevices and crags of a face or whatever will be present,m regardless of quality. Meanwhile, someone who couldn't produce a mental image of something would not be able to draw from memory, which is much rarer than the amount of people who say they cannot visualize. Hence people don't know what the frick they're talking about.
>talking or even thinking about John Green.
You must be 18 years of age to post on this site.
john green and npcs like him unfortunately take up a lot of resources in the world. so they must be considered
I mean they dont have to, theres a word that begins with g and ends with "cide" that should be taken into consideration
Wasn't his first book published like 15 years ago
Yeah, I don't remember any zoomers reading him in school. I was never his target demo (13 yo girls), though.
He was pushed on me by teachers because he made bad analysis videos of famous writers and the teachers thought that he would appeal to a teenage boy because "his characters are teens"
That's their idea of what teenagers like. Not even the teenage girls I know read him. The smarter tomboyish ones read fantasy novels aimed at men and and the dumber ones read Twilight and HP
I still think this whole scale exists because of some misunderstanding about what it means to be able to visualize an apple in your mind's eye.
What's the misunderstanding?
not him, but clearly the homosexuals pretending that they are manifesting an apple in front of them and not vividly imagining it.
>in front of them
No, this can't be the confusion, it's pretty obvious by the apple inside the person's head that the visualization is inside your mind, not augmented reality in front of you. It's pretty obvious. The apples are inside the heads in the picture.
the way people talk about it, due to the meme, can be misleading. i don't really understand the complete inability to visualize on command, but because it has captured the public there are a lot of exaggerations.
>but because it has captured the public there are a lot of exaggerations.
i.e.
>there must some rational explanation for why there are so many people who can't visualize an apple
Yes. There is. The majority of people on this planet are NPCs who have literally no free will, no imagination, and no internal monologue. There is no point in sugar coating it. There is no point seeking for answers beyond this. Most people are not sentient beings, but automata.
there are lots of less intelligent people
but i reject the idea that there are any humans that don't have the divine spark within them
I guess we should see it this way.
Some have a spark like when you try to light up a lighter,others a small flame and theres the people who have a full bonfire.
Actually I can manifest an image of an apple in front of me, in my hand, etc. It's not as clear as in my head and requires more focus. I can also induce the weight, texture, smell, taste, phantom touch, etc. Like I'm a schizophrenic but aware.
is that how you regular recall things?
No it's usually in my head and not projected into my field of vision because doing that requires concentration. Visualizing in my head doesn't require any work.
NTA but I do that too. When I was a child I used to entertain myself during long car rides by imagining ninjas, jaguars or monsters running alongside me, jumping from roof to roof and avoiding obstacles to keep up. Nowadays I don't superimpose my imagination onto my vision much, and it's a bit more tiring than I remember. The process is pretty similar to regular imagination, but with focus split evenly on the internal and external, if that makes sense.
No you can't. It's still in your mind's eye. You are imagining the same thing you are seeing with your real eyes in that moment, so the two "screens" are identical and you think they're the same.
What is the mind's eye? All I know is I close my eyes I imagine an apple, I see it projected on the back of my eyelid, I open my eyes the apple remains. I can imagine the apple in my hands and I can recall what such an apple would feel like if I had it in my hands
Mind's eye is your imagination, stuff you see inside your head without eyes. In your case (assuming you don't have hallucinations) you are imagining the same scenario that you are actually seeing in reality but with an apple added, so you can't really tell which one is real because they're identical (minus the apple).
You can't create a mental image so strong that you become blind to the visual stimuli around you?
daydreaming? yeah, but it remains within my mind. it is more that i have retreated into my mind than manifested the image into the world.
>day dreaming
No. It's more like trying to remember if you turned the kettle on so you replay the event in your head and watch what happened. It's not the same as getting lost in thought, it's visual thinking.
yeah I do that
A lot of people don't and even fewer do it in high res (i.e. to the point the thought blocks out other stimuli). That's what the scale is meant to represent.
How anyone could unintentionally visualize the outline of an apple while trying to visualize an apple.
Are you moronic? Clearly it's demonstrating a poor mental visual of an apple, not an "unintentional outline" of one.
I'm just so good at visualizing that I take everything literally, but that's something a visualet like you could never understand. Keep narrating your thoughts that you can't see, monologuecuck.
visualize my dick against your anus
primed for entry
your hole quivering with delight and trepidation
Nice cope.
>can't comprehend what I wrote
>vaguely understands he's wrong
>calls me a moron
Lesser minds projecting at me is always funny
I misread what you wrote, sorry about that. No need to be smug about it though, that's unnecessary.
>no one actually sees things in their mind, its all a misunderstanding...right guys?
npc detected
It's the other way around. I can't imagine someone NOT being able to see things in their mind.
>I can't imagine someone NOT being able to see things in their mind.
Sounds to me like you're a 5 tbh
Perhaps. Albeit, some people really do claim that they cant project a 3D object into space they observe.
It would be interestinf to se reaearch done how it comes to this. I have a hunch it has to do with way we memoryse things from early childhood.
When you think off it, memorysing things by words only and packing them up seems more resourcefull then remembering the whole fricking picture of a certain detail or object in general.
What i know is, one of my friends when asked "How does John look like" says she just remembers all words that she ascribes to him. On other hand i allways present my self picture of a John and describe him.
>How does John look like
Man, I don't know, ese. I haven't seen him since 6 years.
No, he's saying he can't imagine an apple inside his mind but only the feelings/ideas associated with it.
I agree, this is always a recurrent theme in these threads. I tend to feel that many of the people in these threads who claim to be highly imaginative "seers" and accuse others of being NPCs may actually be much less creative and imaginative than they think, like a Dunning-Kruger effect of the imagination -- they share the same kind of complete literalism, one-sided intolerance and refusal of metaphor that characterises the opposite side of the completely autistic or unimaginative: they don't seem to understand that "seeing" is a metaphor for what actually occurs in the process of imagination, nor do they seem to ever concede any faults or have a realistic appraisal of their own imagination -- they claim to be able to see anything, anytime, in complete detail, etc.. On the other hand, you do apparently have people like this
who do literally "see" objects through the production of their imagination, visionary/Blake types. There I would have to concede that I am utterly incapable as I believe most people are.
I also think that the imagination is not a process that can be "willed" and those who claim to wield at as a power over others are also betraying a kind of literalism and selfishness in their understanding of the imagination. Imagination is surely not a power we can wield but a gift we are given. I believe the imagination is a passive experience: if I attempt to "will" an image of an apple before me, for example, it's usually faint and seems to disappear the more I focus upon it. But experiencing it within the context of a story, or a daydream, when I am not really concentrating upon it, then it appears more vividly. This is partly why I believe most of us experience dreams just as vividly or near-vividly as real life in a way that the waking imagination cannot supply, in that they occur in an unconscious state.
>On the other hand, you do apparently have people like this
Actually I can manifest an image of an apple in front of me, in my hand, etc. It's not as clear as in my head and requires more focus. I can also induce the weight, texture, smell, taste, phantom touch, etc. Like I'm a schizophrenic but aware. who do literally "see" objects through the production of their imagination, visionary/Blake types.
You can't "see" yourself holding an apple, biting in to it, feeling the texture and the juices and the sweetness in your mouth? It helps if you play it out with your hand.
I can imagine and recall the sensations, but can't block out my hand by mentally imposing an image over it.
I can see the apple in my hand but I can't block out reality either.
Of course I can, but it is not the same as experiencing the sensation. There is clearly a difference that that above anon claims to be able to breach -- manifesting an actual object or hallucinating it before you. All I am claiming is that I have the power of imagination without being able to hallucinate at will, which is the experience for most people.
Why put "see" in quotes? Because you know you aren't seeing anything. You're just talking about imagination.
based
>t vivid imaginer who doesn't delude himself into thinking he's a mind wizard for having a mind's eye.
Nah it's likely autistic people are very internally creative sure it's a form of intelligence but it doesn't mean they use it well or apply it either
There absolutely is a gap in interpretation when people speak of "seeing" with their mind's eye. They are however not wrong about there being a visual experience to imagination. It's, however, never quite as vivid as actual sight. One might speak of 'phantom visuals' or 'quasi-sight'; an often dulled or restricted form of visual experience that is in many ways comparable to dreaming.
Another factor that isn't being accounted for is time and effort invested in said imagination. It should be obvious to anyone that the more effort one invests, the more detailed the visualization can become, e.g. imagining the intricate and complex world of Middle Earth can not be done in an instant.
So the question ought to be whether one is capable of performing "quasi-sight" to a certain level of detail (colors, textures, translation, rotation, mutation, ...) within a given time frame.
With all of this in mind, I'd guess that the average person ought to lie somewhere in the middle: visually experiencing memories, imagination and dreams with a decent level of detail. And of course, there would be outliers on both extremes; some would be essentially barred from any visual experience, which is essentially aphantasia, and some who would excel at creating extremely vivid quasi-perceptions at a superb speed.
I think it's people just lying to be different
It's been years and people still fall for this bait.
That confirms it, fpgaypost
Of course its a misunderstanding. People cannot differentiate between "seeing" and "imagining". I believe that most people who claim to be 4 or 5 have decent visual imagination but they think that the twitter post is asking them to literally hallucinate objects.
I have very good visual imagination. And can easily imagine an apple in 3D, move it around in my head, place it in a completely imaginary kitchen and wach as my imaginary hot gf with blonde locks cuts it in half. But if I were to say that I literally "see" the apple as a visual image, I would be lying. I'm just conjuring up an image straight from memory.
But then there are people like John Greene who apparently don't have imaginative abilities. So I guess 4s and 5s do exist but in smaller numbers than reported.
On the other hand people who can literally hallucinate an object as if it was infront of their eyes like a real object phenomenal experience probably suffer from schizophrenia or some other assortment of mental disorders
I agree with this, because every time I see that scale posted I try it on command and have different results. All biased towards
being able to visualize it, but with varying success. But then at night when I'm going to bed I daydream about girls I fricked or wanted to frick blowing me.
Maybe a better question to survey would be: do you daydream, if so is it in color?
Also quite sure my first wife had BPD and she was obsessed with this homosexual, her favorite book was looking for Alaska and she made me read it. I'll never forget the scene where he's showering or some shit and describing how scrawny and weak he is
>On the other hand people who can literally hallucinate an object as if it was infront of their eyes like a real object phenomenal experience probably suffer from schizophrenia or some other assortment of mental disorders
You can't imagine with your eyes open and then superimpose the object into your sight? It's obviously not as "solid" as a real object would be, it's not a real hallucination
It's always easier to imagine stuff while offing what's actually around. Like, it's easier to imagine touching something wet and cold with imaginary hand rather than the real one because actual senses mess up with the feeling in your mind.
I agree that you can't actually feel senses like wet and cold you can only imagine it or recall what it feels like from the last time you felt it
Alright I'll bite the bait.
The test asks of you to VISUALISE an apple IN YOUR HEAD. I can easily do that to the same degree of detail as in the pic numbered 1. But that's nothing special since I'm only conjuring up an image based on my visual memory of thousands of apple I've already seen.
But anyway, now that I try it, Its much harder and much less clear to superimpose an apple on actual things that I see. Probably because of all the actual visual input being recieved. If I can abstract out an image of the scenery in my mind I can probably place an apple in it. But when I actually try to focus and "see" that particular spot in real world the apple easily disappears and is replaced by the actual object.
Yeah you can't focus too much on the apple with your eyes open or else it changes or flickers
It's a little weird that some people can't see anything even in their head though, do these people dream?
>or else it changes or flickers
If you're a visuallet maybe.
My theory is that imagination and memory are conducted in different part of the brain than image formation based on optical input. They are fundamentally different things and no one actually "sees" the apple.
It honestly helps going cross-eyed. Probably the more murky the visual input, the better.
Going cross eyed is only good for precognition. When it works you’ll experience imagery on par with what you normally see—not to mention sounds and smells. It feels like you go into a trance and experience an intense day dream. From my fathers maternal line everyone can do this. Interpreting dreams are for gays who can’t peer ahead. Reading Jung isn’t going to help you do this. Frick the apple, frick the inner monologue. If your ability to perceive the future is limited to mere gut feeling you’re no better than the gays who can’t simply visualize an apple or hear their own voice.
keep dreaming homosexual
>On the other hand people who can literally hallucinate an object as if it was infront of their eyes like a real object phenomenal experience probably suffer from schizophrenia or some other assortment of mental disorders
i always wonder how clearly they see those things. ie if they "see" a guy can they focus in on the details of his face, see his iris, count the eyebrows? or is it more like something you visualize, and the brunt of the experience just comes from their minds telling them it's actually, really, real and the "seeing" part is more something blurry, affective, based in immediate and holistically convincing experience rather than an actual 'high res' sensory experience
i need to find a schizo to ask these questions
I'm an actual schizophrenic. It's pattern hallucinations and the ones claiming otherwise can't cope as well as me. My brain will see patterns coagulate into something that's not there but it's not literally conjuring up an image, it's just misinterpreting reality and my brain mishandling the information.
Or my delusions are real and I will kill all of you.
I think there should also be a distinction between mental visualization from pure imagination and mental visualization from memory.
When I first heard of these things, I couldn't picture things that I looked at a few seconds ago. I legtitmately had a very discolored and murky "image" mentally.
This all changed after ages of being a coomer and using the same materials over and over. Now, I can recall images and things I've seen in my minds eye pretty well. When I'm trying to make a piece with a specific character, I can picture those materials I've used well enough to use as a baseline.
But I can't really deviate from them. Shit like trying to picture a scene from just text with no visual reference doesn't work for me at all. I see the words, I understand what thry might be like in a clip art sense but I can't form a scene from words alone. So would I be a 4 or 5 since I can have a mental picture of say, "an apple", or would I be a 1 or a 0 because I can't picture what a character would look like based on the written description?
As for the hallucinations, it's more to do with ignoring what you see than overlaying your mental image over what you see. I used to use a similar trick back in math competitions when I was a kid where I'd blank out or unfocus what I see so that I could focus on a floating mental sheet of paper that I could write equations on. What I see hasn't really changed and if I focus on what I'm really looking at, it will overtake my mental image.
i somewhat agree with this. at the bare minimum he'd be able to draw an apple that would be recognisable as such (round and red with a stem and perhaps the classic leaf). that being said he does make it sound like he's entirely incapable of it which is odd
i find the image I get from visualizing something in my mind's eye is less a fixed picture like a photo and more something that is half there and half not, oscillates as i try to pull it from memory and changes especially when i try to 'look around' or make out details. a little like these gifs of stable diffusion generation steps where things move and morph about. i think it's like that for most people, even people who can draw well from imagination alone will make significant errors in proportion, perspective etc. the only way to circumvent that really is a toolkit of rules and mnemonics and endless studies to drill the way people, shapes and bodies are supposed to look like into your memory, but at that point it's not really intuitive visualization anymore.
I see your point.
when I try to imagine my dog it's like I'm seeing snnapshots or brief snippets of it in various states of motion, running or sleeping.
But I don't understand if these are just my memories and whether for this apple test I'm supposed to construct the representation of an apple from scratch or just remember the apple I ate for lunch?
I can’t always visualise something like that by itself. In the worst case, I add in things I associate with apples. like someone biting into one, or an apple tree, or a grocery store with a basket full of apples.
Oh I thought that people were really "seeing" something. But that doesn't make sense since people dont draw the things they image correctly at all, nowhere near as if they have the object in front of them
Does he not have dreams?
>y'all
Nothing intelligent has ever come after this word.
🙁 but anon, us southerners used to say it before it got ‘yassified’ and taken over by uppity urbans
I understand when you guys do it but the man in picrelated is literally a British prig. I'm a bong and I would cringe so hard if I heard someone say that here irl.
As if a southern has ever said something intelligent
Faulkner refutes you, but that poster is a homosexual.
HOWDY Y'ALL
Have these people literally never experienced a dream? A nightmare? That's literally a core human experience, is it not? If you can experience a dream then surely you can visualize shapes, images, colours etc in your mind. Right?
>literally
>literally
shut the frick up you dumb b***h
Cope and seethe, aphantasoid. You will not be admitted to the kingdom of heaven because you have no sentience. Begone.
make me a sandwich
No. I have dreams with visual elements. Right as I'm falling asleep I get some flashes of images. But I can't voluntarily visualize anything while awake.
Apparently dreaming and visualizing are two separate things.
They are but doing one implies you could do the other. After all your dreams are literally influenced by your thoughts.
If you can have visual dreams but have trouble deliberately visualizing something, it's probably something to do with your attention spam and you might have ADHD.
bingo
Who the frick cares about some weeb thinks? They don't read books, just chinese comics.
Holy shit. What a train wreck.
If you want to experience the most vivid form of imagination, you should try entering the hypnagogic state, a brief period between wakefulness and sleep. You can train your brain to linger in that state by constantly waking yourself up through Inception-style kick, like holding a spoon in your hands that drops if you fall asleep. Einstein and Salvador Dali swore by this method as their prime source of inspiration.
Yes, I've experienced it a few times.
Things feel extraordinarily clear, you see objects in the room with total clarity. I made myself see a sculpture, a picture of the sea etc. When I tried to see a nude women it stopped. Oh, well! Happened a few times, don't know if I can induce it.
>dreams for inspiration
literally the lowest tier of inspiration. the people i've talked to that do this were pathetically uncreative. on the same level as those who do drugs to try and be creative.
No, dreams are a kino source. Most are not good, though.
Read Jung. Also sorry to hear that you have such uninteresting dreams.
sorry to hear you've never experienced real creativity, and thus have to resort to taking inspiration from a semi coherent mishmashed jumble of random thoughts and feels
its easy to prove that dreams are shit, because many artists have the cliche idea of "trying to create a piece that feels like a dream". and they are always shit
real creativity happens in the waking world
Sorry to hear that. Trying reading Kafka!
You do realize people who take inspiration from dreams can also use their imagination awake right ?
If as you claim true imagination only happens awake and the dreamers are less imaginative you would have to defend the argument that dreaming substract from awakened imagination instead of adding to it.
is this image a yugioh referece to godspeed you black emperor
This anon knows what's up. I try to have as much fun with mine as I can, but I can scarcely get more than a few minutes out of it
I notice this when I'm driving while incredibly tired. The kicks happen constantly from suddenly realizing I need to be awake to not die, but I can semi-consciously watch things in my field of view vividly transform into completely different objects like an out-of-control dream world. It probably would be really neat to do in a controlled, safe environment.
Don't do this. This is how you create a Tulpa. Mine has been fricking me nonstop for years. It has killed my corporeal sex life.
I get that anyway, I know I'm falling asleep when I start dreaming whilst half awake.
Bro just do YOGA NIDRA, it's much safer and easy
This guy got bullied off of tumblr.
How?
There was a time on tumblr where you could edit someone else's posts for some fricking reason. This led to people constantly altering John Greene's posts into something sexual, mostly related to him being a wienersucker.
wow women are mean!
He tried to limit the damage done to his account, fishingboatproceeds, but it was too late and he left the site.
Thinking about it, the damage control he tried there is super odd. He tries to pretend as if that editor did it to make gay blowjobs seem shameful lol, instead of just making him look foolish.
What a loathsome guy.
>people with penises
>people with penises
>learn how to insult someone
Kek
Yeah, my first thought is that this damage control is way more pathetic than that actual post would be were he to have actually posted it himself earnestly, which would make him a based homosexual had he done it. It's so snivelly in the disgusting way that he is.
Lol, I can imagine it having happened but John not reporting it to the police because he liked it so much and because being a "person engaging in same sex relations" is already oh so hard so why make the rapist's life harder 🙁
Curious how even leftist women think he is creepy
>mostly related to him being a wienersucker.
Suddenly based
qrd?
He's a creep but he's still a good writer
John Green can't imagine people putting their dicks in his cereal confirmed
Lmao
As a cuckold myself I actually found myself siding with Green there in the last few lines. Socrates' final argument is predicated on the notion that sleeping with other men would be a betrayal of trust to begin with. That is the flaw in your argument so I am gonna have to give this one to Green.
Moral relativists don't get to make objective moral claims.
This. And yet they do all the time. It really pisses me off.
IMAGINE BEING AT wienerS
This argument is actually kind of disrespectful to women; imagine comparing human beings to processed cornflake
Women are just processed bawds. At least the cornflake can feed a man.
Kek, but even if you hate women you must see the irony of a feminist man thinking of them as equal to fricking cornflakes
does these people have dreams i wonder? they must not have dreams because if they did how could they not understand visualizing in their minds?
A lot of people don't dream at all. All boomers dream in black/white.
>source: my hairy arse
It's a humblebrag because you're supposedly a concrete visualizer while John Green is a multisensorial synesthetic Chad.
Phantasia Pleb
>can only understand an object as an physical object
>rooted in material world, slave of the demiurge
>"sees" things, aka their phenomenal appearances
>his mind is just a glorified mirror
>cannot understand books, thinks reading means playing a movie in his head
Abstract Thinker Chadson
>cognizes past superficialities
>on direct line to the world of Forms, was born outside the Cave
>thinks about thoughts about thoughts about thoughts...all the way to the Prime Mover
>has never sees an image in his life, even with eyes open, only sees the effervescent anima mundi
>knows that numbers are real, has a few in his pocket
>NPCs have created a cope for their mental defficiency
lol
>implying none of the "ideal forms" are geometric
Your meme falls flat here
this relies on the "phantasia pleb" not being able to think in abstract concepts
hilarius cope
This is so fricking fake. Im a 5 but I can still "imagine" scenes but I dont acutally fricking see them.
>I dont acutally fricking see them.
elaborate
It is pitch black in my mind but I still "see" the thought. But not with any visuals and certainly no color.
How do you see without visuals though?
Because I know from memory what a certain thing looks like? I dont need to see an apple infront of me to know in my mind how an apple looks.
>It is pitch black in my mind but I still "see" the thought.
That makes you a 1. You would definitely be able to freely imagine arbitrary colored objects as if they were in front of your face, as opposed to just "remembering what they are like", were you capable of it.
Question IQfy
So I can “visualize” an orange in all 3 demensions in my mind; but I feel distinctally it is some orange I have seen before
Just like removed from context outside
Does this make me a 1 a 5 or somewhere in between?
You can't think of that image but bloated and rotting? Or do you need to see a bloated and rotting orange?
I can make the bloated and rotten orange look different but my first instinct is to aroyten orange I’ve seen before,,
>So I can “visualize” an orange in all 3 demensions in my mind; but I feel distinctally it is some orange I have seen before
That's a symptom of autism. Not even joking.
The shit this fricker pulled in the Anne Frank House was insane. Feel bad for his brother tho. Hope he beats the cancer.
>The shit this fricker pulled in the Anne Frank House was insane
What did he do?
The big romantic climax in one of his books/movies is set in the AF house. His couple make out whilst speakers play excerpts from AF's diary, and then all the museum goers start applauding them.
I mean, in all seriousness, is anyone surprised he's an NPC?
I wish his liberal worldview would get shattered. Something impactful so all his smugness leaves his body right before he dies.
I see things in the same way I see a memory
Nobody is making the deeper connections here. This teaches us that the israelites lack the imaginative capacity of the Aryans and therefore act entirely on instinct, hence their failure to recognise their collapsing influence and eventual expulsion.
John Green is white. Also I'm non-white and I'm able to visualize things in my mind. There goes your /misc/ argument.
Impressive! Now, visualize your hallway not beeping.
>Also I'm non-white
>John Green is white
>John Green is white
do you feel like your non-white family and compatriots are as imaginative and intelligent as you are?
Very people few are, whatever their origin. I realized /misc/'s arguments were BS after meeting many Europeans. I was not only more knowledgeable than them (in matters of art, literature, history) but also more creative and imaginative. The average Euro is a pleb, nothing to write home about. I've nothing against them but everything against /misc/'s lies.
>I've nothing against them but everything against /misc/'s lies.
Modern European culture is Weimar Germany to the tenth power. Whites at least have the highest capacity for advanced intellect and creativity. Most nonwhites are literally just animals living in the present, supremely ignorant of all imagination or foresight.
Even if you're as smart as you think you are, your offspring will likely just fall back into the cesspool of general bastardisation and mediocrity.
if he has a high IQ partner they will likely have high IQ offspring. regression to the mean applies to the larger populations.
>if he has a high IQ partner they will likely have high IQ offspring.
But they will just be another mud that we have to remove from our genepool
where you do you live?
>where you do you live?
Here
>88
chegged
but also, that explains the low IQ reductionism
>that explains the low IQ reductionism
What am I reducing anon?
Race to worth
Ignoring exemplary specimens
He's a midwit though and so is his trannie looking wife.
>her ~~*nose*~~
oy vey, that nose is like annuda shoah
I would feminize her with little regard for her safety.
you kind of sidestepped my question.
it was meant to ascertain whether your kin are high IQ.
do you not acknowledge mean IQ differences for different races?
Post ancestry
>one mulatto claims he can visualize things in his head
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I'm not a mulatto but I'm not joking. I can imagine entire movies if I want.
My dad is high IQ but leans more towards math/science.
Finding an intelligent woman to reproduce is hard, unfortunately.
>Finding an intelligent woman to reproduce is hard
Eh. I value the right spirit and love for truth more than intellect.
>John Green is white.
Is he not?
>Is he not?
He's a very well hidden israelite. Most israelites lie on national censuses. Does anyone honestly believe there are only like 20 million of them? It's 50 million at the very least..
>very well hidden
Not to anyone who knows Green is a israelite name.
Not necessarily.
i mean, good lord
grim
Wtf does he mean that “it’s just text.” Surely if I mentioned that a character had blonde hair and wore a suit and asked him to draw that character, he wouldn’t just draw an empty suit suspended below a floating toupee. So clearly his mind must make approximations and visual schemas.
this is genuinely sad to me. That somebody who ostensibly loves books cannot do this. It does explain why I his writing is lacking.
i can choose between the two
i like reading fantasy/scifi/history while visualizing everything
i can also just read the text as pure text and its much quicker but less immersive/impactful
you're just describing effort
How do you guys compromise between having a steady, natural flow of visualization while having a decent reading speed?
I read slow, unfathomably slow like 15 pages an hour, not even on hard prose, just your standard Dosto or Henry James, but in my defense I try to visualize literally everything and spend too much time thinking about different camera angles and characters' outfits and facial expressions. Do you guys do this unconsciously? I want to be able to read like 60-80 pages an hour as some of you claim
>compromise between having a steady, natural flow of visualization while having a decent reading speed?
It's not separate: you're there, in it. If you forget about it, then it's no issue.
>it's all subvocalizing homunculus chatter
Hyles gonna hyle.
when i read, not only do i imagine visuals, i also imagine sound effects and a score.
sometimes i get so immersed i start quietly voice-acting the lines and emoting as the characters with my face.
that's what i've always thought. it's arguing about the semantics. Yes I can imagine things, rotate them, modify them, combine multiple things into one, that's how I'm able to come up with things from imagination that i would then draw. But I don't literally LITERALLY see them, with my eyeballs. it's a mind's eye, it's a different thing.
Also, I've never heard of anyone imagining things in greyscale, or as an outline. If the thing I'm imagining is very complex, I may lose track of fine details, and it will be a morphing, ever-changing, just like what
says (and the stable diffusion gif anon provided is also very apt). So I think that part is just some made up bs by the author of the original scale image.
However, this John Green guy makes me doubt this theory right now... is he literally just thinking about text? is he the autism?
When I try to picture an apple I see an apple bottomed ass
If you can jerk off with just your imagination you're good.
I precum almost every day from imagination.
Sadly, noone under 40 can do that
I can because nothing I could find could ever fulfil the fantasy of being magically transformed into a girl and having sex with men
Been doing it since I was a kid
I wonder if this is why I visualise when I read now
I'm 27 and I can
im 20 and i can. I'd be surprised to learn most people my age can't jerk off with their imagination, but most of them probably don't do it in practice though
>If you can jerk off with just your imagination you're good.
I've fricked every hot girl and twink I've ever met with the power of advanced eidetic imagination 😉
I find it’s better this way. The imagination is stronger than reality. Once in a while I’ll use pics, preferably non-nudity ones
I accidentally posted this on IQfy too, so feel free to check out the parallel discussion while it lasts.
i love IQfy but that thread is a shitshow
Did you post this on IQfy?
I did not
How do people even enjoy books without visualizing what they are reading?
when i went on ADHD meds i literally lost the ability to vividly visualize in my head. i think people really do have different levels of being able to do this
I think this all a misunderstanding. These number 5 people have dreams right? What is a dream except a mental visualization?
Some people don't dream in images but in sensations/feelings
>guy who writes vapid shit for 14 year old girls and hates Greek philosophy has no internal monologue
how unsurprising
I think I shift on the scale, depends how mindful I am.
I had an ex gf who had an insane visual imagination. Easily a 1 in the scale. But she had trouble with narrating her thoughts. I wonder if one thing takes from the other, but considering that John Green sucks at both, then it's likely just random.
This explains why his prose is so good. For him reading has always been about the language.
I imagine all the characters as anime girls
I've been studying Pound, Williams, and Olsen. People ask me about it and reverence leaves me unable to speak. And now I'm here reading about a famous writer of our age and he wouldn't even be able to engage in the process of absorbing that material let alone reach any level of understanding. John Green is a savage.
>a book is bad if I remember the text
Grim. I guess that's what a lifetime of Harry Potter and YA does to you.
For me its both, I see an image that was striking and then I memorize the line that conjures it up for me
I don't believe people who claim not to see things in their mind's eye. Imagination is basically an extension of memory, and if they're claiming they don't possess imagination, they shouldn't possess memory either. If someone asks them to describe a place they've visited or the face of someone they know, how are they doing it? It's utter nonsense. Attention seeking LARPers.
I went to film school and like half my class couldn't visualize beyond 4 either.
>I went to film school
Sure you did sweaty
Film school sucks. It's literally John Green types who were tryhards in highschool and had the grades to get in, but most of these people have no visual imagination. They have access to the most expensive equipment and use it in the most uninspiring way possible. It's weird, a lot of people light/shoot more like a logic system of what's supposed to work or what has worked than doing interesting things. It makes sense if all they see is a rigid language. to be honest filmmaking isn't that creative of an art, most stuff is shot this way in the industry.
Whenever someone post that image in twitter you will see a lot of people claiming they are a 1, but that is statistically impossible. The test to know if you're truly a 1 is to imagine a tiger or a zebra so vividly that you can, without any trouble, just as if you were looking at a photograph, count its black strips. If you can't, then you're barely better than a legit moron like John Green.
>imagine a tiger or a zebra so vividly that you can, without any trouble, just as if you were looking at a photograph, count its black strips
I'm a 1, but that's impossible. Not even I can do that and I seriously doubt anyone can.
Cope.
How could anyone even do that? I'm definitely a 1, but I can't keep an image completely still in my mind. It's kind of like looking at a reflection in the water while someone throws small rocks at it, so even if I tried to count the strips, they will keep moving and changing in number.
You're not a 1.
I'm definitely a 1, but only a turbo autist like Tesla could pass that anon's test. A regular person could never do something like that.
It’s alright, anon, I’m a 2 as well.
can you can't the veins on my wiener that you're imagining near your anus?
Lmao no.
Counting the lines on a zebra or tiger accurately is not even that easy with a picture.
Also im a 1 and can imagine a zebra like it was like 10 meters away but if i try to count the line or focus on details of a bigger picture i imagine the image will shift to those details from closer.
Then you're not a 1, which is fine. Very few people are.
Except youre wrong.
Im a 1 and Ive always been proud of myself for not being an NPC who cant visualize.
Counting the lines of a zebra or tiger in your mind is impossible.
>Counting the lines on a zebra or tiger accurately is not even that easy with a picture.
It is if you've finished third grade.
You don't need numbers higher than a few dozen.
When I try to count the stripes they always flicker out of existence.
Nobody has mentioned this in the thread yet but I get really vivid night terrors sometimes does anyone else get those? Would someone with aphantasia not get those?
Massive cope. I have richer imagination than you.the zebra has 57 stripes
Anon, you just also have a very good working memory. Being a 1 means your spatial intelligence is high, but many of those people won't perform as well in different tasks.
Even better: if you're a 1, can you imagine a face or even just a realistic apple over a piece of paper and draw over it? That would make you a human printer.
My brother can do that and he was obsessed with drawing as a kid and he was amazing at it. He lost his interest in it many, many years ago though, but even now if you ask him to draw something he's still really good at it.
This is the dumbest, most pointless post I’ve seen on this board. Simply LOOK at the damned original image: If you can see an apple in your mine, and it looks as it does in reality, you’re a 1—that’s what the original image is about. My best guess as to why this tard chose a tiger and a zebra is that he’s relatively familiar with them. When I try to count the stripes on an imaginary zebra or tiger, it all gets corrupted because I’m not entirely sure of the scale of the animal (“is its body too long?” etc) or its stripes (how wide or thin they should be. If most 1’s tried to do something similar with an animal they’re more familiar with it would be easier, because you wouldn’t be quantifying something which your brain has naturally made ambiguous.
>mine
mine*
cope
lol
maybe you should've vividly imagined how dumb you'd look before you made those posts LMAO
>typos mean you’re dumb because… uh…
E is just above D on the keyboard, tard.
Most people know what tigers and zebras look like, but do not see them in person, and thus do not truly understand the scale of the animal or its stripes. When I imagine it, I can see the stripes, but they are completely unquantifiable, ambiguous, because I am not actually familiar with zebras or tigers. If you imagine a bug and try to count its legs, it’s way easier, for example. This is literally just larping as a genius for you.
Holy brainlet
>with an animal they’re more familiar with it would be easier
Then do that, you fricking moron. A tiger or a zebra are usually used because most people know what they look like, but you can obviously do the same thing with another animal. Or if you're too dumb even for that, then try to visualize a small sheet of graph paper and count how many squares are in there without them flickering or disappearing as you count them.
You have demonstrated that you’re a midwit
Imagine yourself sucking my dick
This is bullshit. I'm as much of a 1 as it gets and not even I can do this shit. The strips starts disappearing and changing as I try to count them. Good trolling, anon.
>all the morons replying to this post
>not just imaging a zebra with three stripes — white black white
NGMI.
This post is obviously a troll. I'm a 1 but doing this is simply not possible.
7 stripes
Not only I can count them, I can feel the body of the zebra, its heat from the skin, its smell.
I can feel myself riding the zebra in the savannah with some random classical music in the background.
This and more is possible to the human mind, you accept limitation and thus find this impossible. Training of the mind is no different than that of the body.
Who is he?
Because of my activity I'm a phenomanally good visual person. Despite this, actually, you couldn't pick a worse board for this kind of posting.
It's probable that people with germanic languages and the such, coupled with a really low cultural environment makes it so that you won't understant where I'm coming from. But reading and using your imagination is really counteresthetic. 95% of the "sacred" "transcendental" "esthetic" value of literature is in its style, flowing, evocative and poetic structure. Imagination is always bland, and in the most authoritative media, where the writer among all artists is the one whose vision is hardest to evade, this 5% of agency that imagination gives ruins a lot of the deep human contact in literature. Well anyways just check Hegel's list on what goes from the most terrestrial to the most ethereal form of art.
nowadays you have cinema and such, it's also the same, where styles matters more than scenario or structure or anything.
It's all about the sacred, transcendental. And You can't see those with your eyes. Even painters came to this conclusion.
Look at Rothko: still probably the most sacred painter
There are homies out there who actually see shit in grayscale in their mind's eye? That's more embarrassing than not being able to see anything at all
I unironically see in black and white and until I was a teen whenever people talked about colors I thought they meant different shades of gray.
But that's how you see everything, right? That's acceptable. But seeing colors with your eyes but imagining shit in monochrome is mad embarrassing.
It's called israeli Personality Disorder.
I have it too, it's not that bad.
Why do threads like this attract redditors? Really low IQ low effort discussion in here and it’s disappointing
Name names, homosexual.
he's probably talking about all the liars pretending the scale is referring to IRL hallucinations.
hope you're not one of them.
He always seemed kind of weird; it is hard to be a creative person whether a storyteller or a visual artist without some level of imaginative skills
Allegedly Shakespeare couldn't visualize either.
I have some very vivid nightmares when I'm sleeping like some of the most horrifying shit, but when I'm awake I can only imagine things in a very blurry way and it kinda dissipates very shortly after it's imagined up.
i suspect this is a working memory problem
i am capable of vivid imagination but i find it is sometimes difficult to summon the mental energy.
Alright morons step aside, I will explain what this means so hopefully some of you would understand and this meme would die over time.
Firstly, I see some people mixing it up with inner monologue, that is another topic but probably related at least in concept if not in physiology as well.
Since we are talking about subjective experience, it is natural that there is some confusion on this subject. But the greater culprit is this meme image itself. I doubt that that scale was created based on interviewing multiple people but rather than was based on the assumptions and misunderstandings of one man.
There is no 1 to 5 scale as it is pictured in that image.
Some people cannot see things in their mind's eye. Eyes closed or open. They cannot imagine hot girls to jerk off or have the sheep jump on the fence as they count to them to fall asleep.
That does not necessarily make them dull, as having no inner monologue does not make people NPCs. There are different ways to conceptualize, visualize, and understand the world around us and within us. There are many creative people who cannot see in their mind's eye. Some people see the word itself when they hear or read a word, rather than the thing it signifies which makes them have more control over different aspects of writing, as with someone who has greater understanding of the sound of a word.
Let's also differentiate between seeing things as part of the real world and in one'es mind eye. The former is simply hallucination and is not relevant to the topic at hand as far as I am concerned.
When one sees things in their mind's eye, whether their eyes open or closed, they know the thing they see is conjured, whether intentionally or not.
You can also see things in your mind's eye awake without your will, perhaps disturbing images or such, that comes from your subconsciousness. In that regard, I think it is similar to dreams.
There are degrees of this vision. Similar to having degrees of other conjured senses. I mean, one can also conjure a smell, touch, taste, or sound in their mind, as well as thoughts. Not everyone is capable of all of them, and not to the same degree.
For vision, some people may see things in motion, in 3D, rotate them easily, have the specific details while others may see only 2D images, or blurry vague and floating impressions.
Perhaps this can be trained like a muscle with visualisation exercises. Perhaps other things are necessary.
It can be that people who cannot conjure up images, cannot do so because of a traumatic event of some sort that happened in very early age, and that their brain is trying to protect them from seeing some distrubing images by not showing them any images at all. Or perhaps they are just more capable in other areas of the brain.
I myself can see floating vague impressions, but they do not come to me naturally, I have to focus. And if I have seen a photo of a person's face, the memory of the photo overwhelms the memory of that person's face.
homie I ain't reading that. I visualised a comment that I actually read instead.
my mind's eye was very vivid until one day me and my cousin played a game in which we saw who could slam their head into the wall the hardest. I got a running start, put my head down, and jumped into the wall. I no longer visualize things.
I'm so much a 1 on that scale I can't even imagine being a 5 as a real thing. Like you don't see anything at all? When you read you just acknowledge characters and emotions? How can prose even effect you. You just understand it to be good but have nothing beyond that. I refuse to believe it's even possible
>5s refuse to believe that 1s exist and become actively angry
>1s are baffled to discover that 5s exist and slowly become horrified
this is a delightful illustration of phenomenology
How the frick does this work?
ai
will ai ever produce sexy feet?
I don't know how to describe it. I don't SEE anything, but I can parse textual descriptors into an imagined simulacrum that exists entirely as...I don't know. A feeling? A half-remembered dream? I'm definitely capable of being moved by prose.
You're absorbing the meaning as purely abstract concepts, so abstract that they don't have even a visual form. This does not really mean you are an "NPC" or whatever the meme word is, as you're still capable of abstract reasoning even if it doesn't take a verbal/visual form.
I remember speaking to two women who claimed they cannot picture anything in their mind, I don't believe that is a thing.
>y'all
I still don't understand the concept, what am I supposed to think about and see?
Non-visualizers are simply animals, but they are not as despisable as those wienerroaches without inner monologues. Those are really an insult to the human condition.
Unironically, why do people always get so offended when they are told they are a 2 instead of a 1? Being a 2 is good enough. It's extremely rare to be a 1.
I think most people are 2 and artists and other creative people are 1
i'm not a professional artist but i can draw and paint at a level where casual bystanders will basedface if they catch a chance glance of my scribbles, and i disagree. the way you become kim jung gi is by learning how to draw from nature (and later imagination) the classical way and practicing till your joints ache.
good visual art usually boils down to craft and originality, one of them is just a grind, the other is more of a gift you have or you dont. i think the only way your aptitude for visualization would affect you in that regard is if you're genuinely "visually moronic", but i don't think it'd give you much of an edge. yes there's that guy who can draw a cityscape from memory after seeing it for 20 seconds and that is impressive indeed, but it doesnt really make his art interesting or beautiful per se
I get it, I like to draw to and I don't think visualization skills are always an edge, but they may get better if you practice drawing from the imagination a lot
They also are encouraging if you can imagine what the art will look like before it is completed
listen up, homo.
you're the one who is misunderstanding the exercise.
it isn't about superimposing a mental image onto the world, or hallucinating a fricking animal you've never seen irl.
you're not some human pinnacle because you daydream a lot and imagine counting stripes on an animal that you dreamed up, and simply saying that you're doing so is unverifiable.
i can say that i'm projecting a dragon onto my wife's left breast right now and he's winking and making lewd gestures, does that make me a 1?
What happens to the guys with synesthesia?
Hunted to extinction
If you want to elevate yourself from this tired discussion, read Schwitzgebel, The Unreliability of Naive Introspection. You'll look at threads like this one and see all these wienersure ignoramuses for what they are: clueless.
Yeah that’s usually the vibe I get from these types who talk about this and use the term wordcel unironically. It’s like some gay split from Chan culture.
What’s more interesting is how many of you can FEEL things in your head.
It's not that strange. Your brain remembers feel, temperature, and scent so it's not far fetched to recall those sensations. You probably just haven't focused on it much.
I can remember tastes very accurately too. I always thought that was the weirdest one. If I think about how a strawberry tastes I can all but actually taste it.
How would you cook properly if you couldn't recall and feel the tastes, aromas and textures of food, blend them together in your mind, see what would go well together and what wouldn't? Just guessing and trial and error? Is having a powerful imagination the real reason why I'm a fatass?
i can see, feel, hear and taste in my head but finding a smell is pretty hard. i guess i can get a grasp on certain fragrances and spices but aside from that i usually end up just thinking about a visual linked to that scent.
Mentation is more of a higher order bowel movement for these types.
It's baffling to me that some of y'all smell stuff in your mind. You SMELL it? The way your nose smells? I always thought "olfactorialize" meant thinking of the words/ideas/feelings associated with a thing, not actual smells. I am such a total 5 on this scale I didn't know 1-4 existed.
The way I see it, there are two things that need to be clarified. First of all, when we say "imagination" that's something different from "visualization" they don't mean the same thing in this context. Second, we all have different ways of "imagining" things. A lot of us use visualization to imagine things, while others might use taste, smell, or abstractions/concepts or whatever you call it. On one end, (sees a clear apple, 1) they use visualization to imagine it. While on the other end (doesn't see anything, 5) might use other ways to imagine it, like touch, taste and/or smell. The people that can't exactly visualize an apple can still imagine it, it's just that they don't actually "see" it in the same way as someone who can visualize it does. If we take the people that uses abstractions/concepts, they can still imagine an apple because they know what it is already (somewhat simplified), although most of these people use some sort of combination of taste, touch, smell and knowing what it looks like. So, the way this "illustration" in OP' pic is potrayed it makes it seem like some people don't have an imagination at all which I don't think is true. Now, this thing usually gets paired with inner voice/monologue dilemma but that's another thing.
In short, we all can imagine but in different ways.
Why are leftists such unspiritual people?
>now visualize how you would feel if you hadn't had breakfast yesterday
I have the clarity of 1 and can also deconstruct/rebuild the object in my head. I can visualize a worm tunneling a spiral inside the apple.
Isn't the best way to measure this by drawing an apple or a face from memory? I think people with aphantasia only make up 4 to 2% od the population, it's exceedingly rare, same with hyperphantasia.
The written test is a sham, if you can visualize, you can draw perfectly from memory.
That makes no sense. Drawing is a separate skill
But if you can visualize it perfectly, it like having a specimen right there. So even if the lines are wonky, all the crevices and crags of a face or whatever will be present,m regardless of quality. Meanwhile, someone who couldn't produce a mental image of something would not be able to draw from memory, which is much rarer than the amount of people who say they cannot visualize. Hence people don't know what the frick they're talking about.
>Guy who wrote Fault in Our Stars has literally nothing going on in his head
Does anyone else visualize much better with their eyes open?
yeah but only when your mom's anus is right there in front of me